Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Living in Switzerland > Swiss politics/news
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01.09.2015, 19:15
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: here
Posts: 3,528
Groaned at 50 Times in 41 Posts
Thanked 3,545 Times in 1,803 Posts
glowjupiter has a reputation beyond reputeglowjupiter has a reputation beyond reputeglowjupiter has a reputation beyond reputeglowjupiter has a reputation beyond reputeglowjupiter has a reputation beyond reputeglowjupiter has a reputation beyond repute
Yes to gay marriage (not partnership)

The Committee of the Council of States and the Committee of the National Council voted in favor of the implementation of gay marriage in Switzerland.

Reason for this proposed ruling: Registered partnership and concubinage deserve same fundamental rights as marriage, rather than registered partnerships being "second-class marriages". All types of couples shall have the freedom to enter all types of legal partnerships.

Source
Reply With Quote
The following 6 users would like to thank glowjupiter for this useful post:
  #2  
Old 01.09.2015, 20:03
mirfield's Avatar
Moddy McModface
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Basel
Posts: 8,380
Groaned at 54 Times in 48 Posts
Thanked 8,553 Times in 3,140 Posts
mirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond reputemirfield has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Yes to gay marriage (not partnership)

Congratulations!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01.09.2015, 20:15
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: N/A
Posts: 659
Groaned at 54 Times in 42 Posts
Thanked 588 Times in 325 Posts
lorena1 has a reputation beyond reputelorena1 has a reputation beyond reputelorena1 has a reputation beyond reputelorena1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Yes to gay marriage (not partnership)

Glad to see this. I think I read somewhere that most Swiss support same sex marriage, so it was about time to start the process of legalizing marriage.

Same sex marriage is legal in 12 European countries, so clearly there's a long way still to go, but it's good to see national and international courts stepping up their game and ruling in favor of same-sex marriages.

By the way, this summer the ECtHR concluded that Italy was in breach of the ECHR (Oliary v Italy). It was a very powerful decision (basically stating that same sex partnership recognition is a human right) that set precedent for other EU states.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank lorena1 for this useful post:
  #4  
Old 02.09.2015, 11:17
aSwissInTheUS's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Zurich area
Posts: 6,247
Groaned at 51 Times in 48 Posts
Thanked 9,121 Times in 4,056 Posts
aSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Yes to gay marriage (not partnership)

Sorry I do not get it. Abolish registered partnership completely (the one and only thing that differentiate it apart from name, is the lack of right to adoption) and just use one name: Marriage. Two names for the completely same thing (rights, duty and obligations) is bonkers.

Or just name it registered partnership and leave the term marriage do the religious folks. They than can offer marriage ceremonies to registered couples. If they offer such ceremonies to same sex couples is up to the denomination. ( FSM: Yes. S.R.E: No.)

If you want the rights (Right to refuse to testify, visiting rights w/o written approval, inheritance tax free and w/o will, pension contributions, widow pension, extra rental protection, etc.) you also have to take the all the duties (Single entity taxation etc.), obligations (financial aid and assistance, etc.) and most importantly the name that comes with it.
__________________
"28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes, 12 seconds. That is when the world will end." - Frank
Reply With Quote
The following 8 users would like to thank aSwissInTheUS for this useful post:
  #5  
Old 02.09.2015, 11:21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Grisons
Posts: 288
Groaned at 5 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 202 Times in 105 Posts
banadol has earned some respectbanadol has earned some respect
Re: Yes to gay marriage (not partnership)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9pOJ8Bc_-g

Makes me cry every time!
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank banadol for this useful post:
  #6  
Old 02.09.2015, 11:36
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: here
Posts: 3,528
Groaned at 50 Times in 41 Posts
Thanked 3,545 Times in 1,803 Posts
glowjupiter has a reputation beyond reputeglowjupiter has a reputation beyond reputeglowjupiter has a reputation beyond reputeglowjupiter has a reputation beyond reputeglowjupiter has a reputation beyond reputeglowjupiter has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Yes to gay marriage (not partnership)

Quote:
View Post
Sorry I do not get it. Abolish registered partnership completely (the one and only thing that differentiate it apart from name, is the lack of right to adoption) and just use one name: Marriage. Two names for the completely same thing (rights, duty and obligations) is bonkers.

Or just name it registered partnership and leave the term marriage do the religious folks. They than can offer marriage ceremonies to registered couples. If they offer such ceremonies to same sex couples is up to the denomination. ( FSM: Yes. The S.R.E: No.)

If you want the rights (Right to refuse to testify, visiting rights w/o written approval, inheritance tax free and w/o will, pension contributions, widow pension, extra rental protection, etc.) you also have to take the all the duties (Single entity taxation etc.) and obligations (financial aid and assistance, etc.) that comes with it.
That's the thing - concubinage, marriage and registered partnership offer different rights and obligations. Of course one should subscribe to both rights and obligations of a legal relationship when entering it, but I do not see abolishing of registered partnership (and only marriage remaining as clearly legally defined legal relationship between both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, as concubinage isn't clearly regulated by law) happening soon, because there are too many heterosexual married couples who claim to be "the only ones" who are "entitled" to certain things which are permitted if married, but not if in a registered partnership because [insert reason].

So, rather than getting rid of the "second-class" registered partnership option, open it for the opposite-sex married people. This way, the opposite-sex couples cannot claim that they have less rights than the same-sex couples (as they now can choose to be in a registered partnership) and same-sex couples cannot claim that they have less rights (apart from adoption, unfortunately, which wouldn't be affected by this new ruling) than opposite-sex married couples, as they can now choose to be married.

Registered partnership and marriage are legally not the same thing yet.
- Couples cannot end their registered partnership due to unacceptability of the legal relationship, while married couples can (basing this on Art. 115 CC)
- There is no legal solidarity between partners in registered partnership after legally splitting up, whereas after a divorce, formerly married couples have to support each other.
- Couples in registered partnerships cannot adopt, but unmarried people or married couples can.
- etc.




Bloody hilarious and touching speech below:

Last edited by glowjupiter; 02.09.2015 at 12:00.
Reply With Quote
The following 5 users would like to thank glowjupiter for this useful post:
  #7  
Old 02.09.2015, 12:45
NotAllThere's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Baselland
Posts: 9,431
Groaned at 145 Times in 127 Posts
Thanked 13,044 Times in 5,297 Posts
NotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Yes to gay marriage (not partnership)

Quote:
View Post
... All types of couples shall have the freedom to enter all types of legal partnerships...
Not all. And why limit it to couples?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank NotAllThere for this useful post:
  #8  
Old 02.09.2015, 12:50
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: here
Posts: 3,528
Groaned at 50 Times in 41 Posts
Thanked 3,545 Times in 1,803 Posts
glowjupiter has a reputation beyond reputeglowjupiter has a reputation beyond reputeglowjupiter has a reputation beyond reputeglowjupiter has a reputation beyond reputeglowjupiter has a reputation beyond reputeglowjupiter has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Yes to gay marriage (not partnership)

Quote:
View Post
Not all.
Die Initiative fordert, dass alle rechtlich geregelten Lebensgemeinschaften für alle Paare geöffnet werden, ungeachtet ihres Geschlechts oder ihrer sexuellen Orientierung.

Quoted from the text I linked to.

Translation:
"The initiative demands that all legally defined relationships/partnerships shall be opened for all couples, irrespective of their sex or their sexual orientation."



Quote:
View Post
And why limit it to couples?
Who would you like to extend this to, apart from couples?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02.09.2015, 12:58
aSwissInTheUS's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Zurich area
Posts: 6,247
Groaned at 51 Times in 48 Posts
Thanked 9,121 Times in 4,056 Posts
aSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Yes to gay marriage (not partnership)

Quote:
View Post
Registered partnership and marriage are legally not the same thing yet.
- Couples cannot end their registered partnership due to unacceptability of the legal relationship, while married couples can (basing this on Art. 115 CC)
Art. 17 of the Partnership law.
https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classifi...index.html#a17

Quote:
View Post
- There is no legal solidarity between partners in registered partnership after legally splitting up, whereas after a divorce, formerly married couples have to support each other.
Art. 34 of the Partnership law.
https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20022194/index.html#a34

Partnership law uses a more modern and condensed wording than the more than 100 year old Civil Code. In a court both are applied the same.

Quote:
View Post
- Couples in registered partnerships cannot adopt, but unmarried people or married couples can.
That's the one that's open.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02.09.2015, 13:00
aSwissInTheUS's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Zurich area
Posts: 6,247
Groaned at 51 Times in 48 Posts
Thanked 9,121 Times in 4,056 Posts
aSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Yes to gay marriage (not partnership)

Quote:
Who would you like to extend this to, apart from couples?
What moral entity are you to forbid me my ménage a trois?
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank aSwissInTheUS for this useful post:
  #11  
Old 02.09.2015, 13:06
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 8,704
Groaned at 155 Times in 134 Posts
Thanked 15,825 Times in 6,712 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Yes to gay marriage (not partnership)

Quote:
View Post
Sorry I do not get it. Abolish registered partnership completely (the one and only thing that differentiate it apart from name, is the lack of right to adoption) and just use one name: Marriage. Two names for the completely same thing (rights, duty and obligations) is bonkers.

Or just name it registered partnership and leave the term marriage do the religious folks. They than can offer marriage ceremonies to registered couples. If they offer such ceremonies to same sex couples is up to the denomination. ( FSM: Yes. S.R.E: No.)

If you want the rights (Right to refuse to testify, visiting rights w/o written approval, inheritance tax free and w/o will, pension contributions, widow pension, extra rental protection, etc.) you also have to take the all the duties (Single entity taxation etc.), obligations (financial aid and assistance, etc.) and most importantly the name that comes with it.
Personally I feel the nanny state needs to keep out of people's bedrooms altogether. The only way to do this in a meaningful way is to abolish marriage altogether and replace it by private contracts that you sign before a notary rather than before a state official and then (within reason) draft exactly as you like, including defining the number of people within the "marriage". The contract signed can then regulate questions such as care over children, inheritance and the right to take medical decisons regarding the other person, as well as how the stash is divided should the contract be dissolved.

Churches should still be allowed to offer weddings of course, but they should be of relevance only within Church law but not in state law, any more than than the state doesn't care if you take Holy Communion and doesn't rule on the validity or legality thereof and doesn't attempt to provide an equivalent for people who don't do Church.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #12  
Old 02.09.2015, 13:13
cannut's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: canada
Posts: 6,497
Groaned at 175 Times in 135 Posts
Thanked 5,609 Times in 3,086 Posts
cannut has a reputation beyond reputecannut has a reputation beyond reputecannut has a reputation beyond reputecannut has a reputation beyond reputecannut has a reputation beyond reputecannut has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Yes to gay marriage (not partnership)

Now I have to answer the question " Are you married" "yes To a women" This sucks .
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank cannut for this useful post:
  #13  
Old 02.09.2015, 13:36
aSwissInTheUS's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Zurich area
Posts: 6,247
Groaned at 51 Times in 48 Posts
Thanked 9,121 Times in 4,056 Posts
aSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Yes to gay marriage (not partnership)

Quote:
View Post
The only way to do this in a meaningful way is to abolish marriage altogether and replace it by private contracts that you sign before a notary rather than before a state official
[...]
the state doesn't care if you take Holy Communion and doesn't rule on the validity or legality thereof and doesn't attempt to provide an equivalent for people who don't do Church.
Agreed, but a notary is a state official and I think there MUST be an official alternative Holy Communion for those who are atheist, not Christian, or excommunicated. Having the Holy Communion for non-excommunicated Christians only is very unfair, humiliating, discriminating, and totally religioulist.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank aSwissInTheUS for this useful post:
  #14  
Old 02.09.2015, 13:37
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: here
Posts: 3,528
Groaned at 50 Times in 41 Posts
Thanked 3,545 Times in 1,803 Posts
glowjupiter has a reputation beyond reputeglowjupiter has a reputation beyond reputeglowjupiter has a reputation beyond reputeglowjupiter has a reputation beyond reputeglowjupiter has a reputation beyond reputeglowjupiter has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Yes to gay marriage (not partnership)

Quote:
View Post
What moral entity are you to forbid me my ménage a trois?
I think you're mistaking me for someone else.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02.09.2015, 14:09
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 11,907
Groaned at 255 Times in 166 Posts
Thanked 14,061 Times in 5,955 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Yes to gay marriage (not partnership)

Quote:
View Post
Who would you like to extend this to, apart from couples?
polygamy. animals. inanimate objects.

why not just abolish marriage completely and not give any special status in civil law to such unions.

if people want to do some mumbo jumbo ceremony, then great. let them do that. then they can call themselves partners or whatever they want, but why should the state get involved?

if they want to unite their finances, then great. let them do so using the normal constructs available. e.g. through partnership agreements or even incorporate a marriage corporation.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank Phil_MCR for this useful post:
  #16  
Old 02.09.2015, 14:22
adrianlondon's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 9,201
Groaned at 194 Times in 177 Posts
Thanked 25,637 Times in 6,892 Posts
adrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond reputeadrianlondon has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Yes to gay marriage (not partnership)

Quote:
View Post
Now I have to answer the question " Are you married" "yes To a women" This sucks .
I'm sure it does. You'd be much happier married to a man.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank adrianlondon for this useful post:
  #17  
Old 02.09.2015, 14:41
aSwissInTheUS's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Zurich area
Posts: 6,247
Groaned at 51 Times in 48 Posts
Thanked 9,121 Times in 4,056 Posts
aSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Yes to gay marriage (not partnership)

Quote:
View Post
Quote:
View Post
Now I have to answer the question " Are you married" "yes To a women" This sucks .
I'm sure it does. You'd be much happier married to a man.
Then the questions is: Who sucks?

Sorry.

Last edited by aSwissInTheUS; 02.09.2015 at 15:04.
Reply With Quote
The following 7 users would like to thank aSwissInTheUS for this useful post:
  #18  
Old 02.09.2015, 16:23
NotAllThere's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Baselland
Posts: 9,431
Groaned at 145 Times in 127 Posts
Thanked 13,044 Times in 5,297 Posts
NotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Yes to gay marriage (not partnership)

Quote:
View Post
...
Translation:
"The initiative demands that all legally defined relationships/partnerships shall be opened for all couples, irrespective of their sex or their sexual orientation.".
So what you mean is not
All types of couples shall have the freedom to enter all types of legal partnerships
but
All types of legally defined couples shall have the freedom to enter all types of legal partnerships...
Which seems slightly tautologous.

As far as your other question, never heard of Polyamoury? Or what about siblings who want to register as partners, or husband/wife, wife/wife husband/husband. And what about people who identify neither as male nor female?

Quote:
View Post
...
Churches should still be allowed to offer weddings of course, but they should be of relevance only within Church law but not in state law, any more than than the state doesn't care if you take Holy Communion and doesn't rule on the validity or legality thereof and doesn't attempt to provide an equivalent for people who don't do Church.
Isn't that the case already in CH? That the church wedding has no legal significance? (btw - Martin Luther considered marriage to be a state matter, not a religious one).
__________________
In accordance with Political Correctness guidelines, I've checked my privileges and come to the conclusion that I'm awesome.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02.09.2015, 16:45
aSwissInTheUS's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Zurich area
Posts: 6,247
Groaned at 51 Times in 48 Posts
Thanked 9,121 Times in 4,056 Posts
aSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond reputeaSwissInTheUS has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Yes to gay marriage (not partnership)

Quote:
View Post
Isn't that the case already in CH? That the church wedding has no legal significance? (btw - Martin Luther considered marriage to be a state matter, not a religious one).
Yes. But the civil/state part is still called marriage. Which gives the religulous Zealots more than enough ground and reasons to object to same sex marriage.

Right now, marriage is only briefly mentioned in Art. 14 of the constitution. But some groups wanted a more strict definition https://www.admin.ch/ch/d//pore/vi/vis404t.html Unfortunately they used a good cause (separate taxation vs. entity taxation) to disguise their bad intend.

PS: You may also read the preamble of the constitution and the text of the Swiss hymn.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank aSwissInTheUS for this useful post:
  #20  
Old 02.09.2015, 16:55
cannut's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: canada
Posts: 6,497
Groaned at 175 Times in 135 Posts
Thanked 5,609 Times in 3,086 Posts
cannut has a reputation beyond reputecannut has a reputation beyond reputecannut has a reputation beyond reputecannut has a reputation beyond reputecannut has a reputation beyond reputecannut has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Yes to gay marriage (not partnership)

Quote:
View Post
I'm sure it does. You'd be much happier married to a man.

I don`t think so May be a goat
Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UK gay couple in civil partnership Shaunagus Permits/visas/government 13 16.04.2014 21:06
Why do French men take their shirts off to demonstrate against... gay marriage? Treverus International affairs/politics 6 10.06.2013 19:06
Gay parents discover limits of partnership jrspet Swiss politics/news 0 02.01.2012 15:41
Australian candidate links gay marriage to child abuse lj667 International affairs/politics 11 09.08.2010 19:25
Marriage and Partnership in CH Carlos R Family matters/health 14 12.07.2010 22:31


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:20.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0